name: method-polisher
description: Academic Method section polisher for research papers. Use this skill whenever the user wants to improve, restructure, evaluate, or rewrite the Method (or Methods, Methodology) section of a research paper. Triggers include: "polish my methods section", "is my methodology clear enough", "help me describe my procedure", "my methods section is too vague", or uploading a paper and asking to improve the methodology description. Also trigger when the user asks whether their method section has enough detail for replication.
Method Polisher Skill
Polishes and restructures the Method section of research papers using Move-Step analysis. Analyzes the existing text, identifies gaps in coverage or clarity, and rewrites or refines accordingly. Default output language is English unless the user specifies otherwise.
Step 1: Read the Input
File input — use the first applicable method:
- Content already in context → process directly
- File reading tool available → use it
- Code execution available →
.docx: python-docx / .pdf: pdfplumber / .txt: open()
- Nothing available → ask user to paste the Method section text
After reading, identify:
- Research type: experimental (lab) vs. empirical (field/survey/observational) vs. computational
- Discipline (affects which Moves are expected and how detailed each should be)
- Current subheadings (Participants, Procedure, Materials, etc.)
Step 2: Diagnose the Existing Text
Map the current text against the four-Move framework. Identify which Moves and Steps are present, unclear, or missing.
Consult references/moves.md for detailed Move rules.
Diagnosis (share briefly with user before rewriting):
Move 1 (Describing subjects/sources): [present / vague / missing]
Move 2 (Describing experiment/procedure): [present / vague / missing]
Move 3 (Describing data): [present / vague / missing]
Move 4 (Introducing analysis method): [present / vague / missing]
Key issues: [list specific problems]
Step 3: Polish Using the Move Framework
The Method section must enable replication — every methodological decision that affects results must be stated. Read references/moves.md for full rules, then apply:
Move 1 — Describing subjects / data sources
- Who/what was studied (sample, corpus, dataset, materials)
- How they were selected or recruited
- Key characteristics (size, demographics, inclusion/exclusion criteria)
- Ethical considerations if applicable
Move 2 — Describing the experiment / procedure
- What was done, step by step, in chronological order
- Instruments, equipment, or stimuli used
- Controls and standardization measures
Move 3 — Describing the data
- What data was collected or recorded
- Data type, format, and size
- How data was recorded or coded
Move 4 — Introducing the method of analysis
- How data was analyzed (statistical tests, frameworks, software)
- Criteria or thresholds used
- Analytical framework or coding scheme
Polishing priorities:
- Check that Move 1 includes sampling rationale, not just sample description
- Ensure Move 2 is sequential and specific enough to be replicated
- Verify Move 3 defines key concepts/variables operationally
- Confirm Move 4 names specific analysis procedures (not just "data was analyzed")
- Apply consistent past tense and passive voice (see
references/language.md)
Step 4: Apply Language Standards
Consult references/language.md for tense, voice, and lexical signal rules.
Key rules:
- Dominant tense: past simple throughout (the method was carried out in the past)
- Dominant voice: passive (focus on what was done, not who did it)
- Active voice acceptable when the subject is clearly the research team
- Present simple only for definitions and established procedures that are still valid
Step 5: Output
Present the polished Method section with a brief note explaining:
- What structural gaps were filled
- What clarity or precision improvements were made
- Whether subheadings were added or reorganized
- Word count (typical: 300–800 words for a term paper; up to 1500 for a full article)
Self-check before output:
- Could another researcher replicate this study from this description?
- Is the sample/data source fully characterized (size, selection, characteristics)?
- Are all instruments, tools, and procedures named specifically?
- Are key concepts operationally defined?
- Is tense consistently past simple? Is passive voice used appropriately?
